And then God said, "Let There Be...The Bible?"

I like to think I've always had a good relationship with God. I may not have been perfect, but I always talked to him, and I believe our relationship is special. Being the inquisitive child/adult I was, I questioned his existence sometimes, but in the end I always came to the conclusion that God is real...But there is ONE thing I always seem to have trouble accepting, and that's the Bible.

In order to understand where I'm coming from, you first have to understand the separation in my mind between God and the Bible. For some, the two are intertwined, synonymous, and walk hand in hand. For me, this isn't the case. My faith in God is strong, and immeasurable. My faith in the Bible, this man-made book...not so much. Before you label me an athiest or a heathen or blasphemer, hear me out. lol.

(A) It begins with the creation of the "King James Version" (the most widely circulated version) of the Bible. If the Bible was made from the direct words of God, why is there a 'VERSION' by the name of a king who ruled in the 17th century? So I did some research:



"

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation by the Church of England of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[3] First printed by the King's Printer, Robert Barker,[4][5] this was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[7] a faction within the Church of England.[8]
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin.
In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[11] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and other Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.

"



First of all, I think God would provide us with a translated Bible, just so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings. But for the sake of argument, let's just say he didn't. Why did it need to be translated THREE times? What changes are being made? What's being revised? I see no need to proofread or edit something you claim are direct quotes from the mouth of God...UNLESS you are conforming it to your preexisting beliefs. And that is exactly what happened. So how am I to trust this book that had to be rewritten repeatedly until it met the standards of The Church of England? There were even earlier 'translations' of the Bible, but they were rejected and banned because of the religious affiliation of the translators. Now we're left with the 'translation' of the Bible that has been accepted over all the other translations because The Church of England destroyed all other versions. Does that make it more accurate and holy?

(B) My second grievance is with the inconsistencies and the things that just flat out don't make sense.

1. While describing the same incident, 2 Samuel 8:4 states that King David captured 1700 horsemen, and 1 Chron. 18:4 claims he captured 7,000...If God is the one recounting this story, why are the numbers so drastically different?


2. Genesis 6:15 states that Noah's ark was 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits in size. We know that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, yielding a volume (if perfectly rectangular, the most voluminous possible shape of three unequal dimensions) of 1,518,750 cubic feet. Into this, you must fit two of each of the 30,000,000 species on earth, plus all the food needed to keep all of them alive for about a year (add up the timeline).
If this were true, it would not be physically possible to put two of each animal species on earth, plus a years' worth of food for all of them, in a volume of that size. Not to mention you would have to travel to each continent to get each species. You've got to go to Antarctica to get penguins, the Arctic to get polar bears, Asia to get tigers, Australia to get kangaroos, Africa to get gorillas, South America to get tapirs and agoutis, etc. What was the climate on this ark? Polar bears can't live in the same conditions as gorillas, they will die. But we just have to accept this explanation, because "it's in the Bible".

3. Jeremiah 3:12 "...for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever."
Jeremiah 17:4 "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall be forever."
...So now I'm confused. Is God able to be angry forever or not??

4. Genesis 32:30 "Jacob said, 'I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'"
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
...Again, I'm confused, for obvious reasons.

5. This one is taken from a discussion in a forum, but I referred to the verses, and it's correct:

"

Of all the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, few make more of a mess of things than the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as given in the four gospels.
Here we have a single narrative, told by four different authors, that is so contradictory that I've never seen an explanation of it. It will be interesting to see the fundamentalists untangle this mess. For the sake of brevity, we'll just pick up the story on that first Easter Sunday:

When the sun was coming up (Matt. 28:1) while it was still dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene (John 20:1) or Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1) or "the women" [note the plural] (Luke 24:1) went to the tomb. There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene had got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1), take your pick.

When she or they, take your pick, arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4), take your pick.

At this point, John says that Mary had run back to fetch Peter and another disciple. The other gospel writers make no mention of Mary taking leave of the tomb to go back and get any of the men at this point.

If/when she/they returned, the angel (Mark 15:6) or the angels (Luke 24:5) is/are quoted by the gospel writers as having said one of three things. Either "He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6) or "Woman, why are you crying?" (John 20:13).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8), take your pick.

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15).

I'm sorry, but at this point, the stories diverge so completely, it is not possible to correlate them any further. But that's OK, because by now, you get the point.

"

6. Any fool out there knows dinosaurs existed. That much is undeniable. So why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? God knows there were dinosaurs, but MAN didn't know that when the Bible was "translated" in the 17th century (first dinosaur remains weren't discovered until the 19th century).

(C) My Third (and final, for the sake of this post not being unbearably long) issue is with the way the Bible has been used by man. You don't need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate. It has been used to enslave, abuse, and kill people. I truly believe the Bible was a creation by man to manipulate people's love of God. People who have good, kind hearts and wish to do nothing more than serve Him, are presented with this book that, they are told, has been written by God himself. And they believe. For hundreds of years they believe. And this belief has been used against them time and time again, but they don't dare speak against it because in their minds God and the Bible are one, and to them, disagreeing with it is the same as denying Him.




"

The Bible – A Fairytale book of rules brainwashing millions. Obliviously used to help create war, kill, hate, judge and discriminate. – Anonymous

"



Again, let me emphasize my belief in God. But I truly believe he just shakes his head and laughs every time we grab The King James Version of the Bible to build a relationship with Him instead of just TALKING to him. I think it may hurt him a bit whenever one of us uses this book to degrade, judge, or manipulate another person. If more of us would put down that action-packed novel, I'm sure we would realize that we're all praising the same omnipotent being, and there's no need to fight over it. Religion is irrelevant, but a strong belief in a higher power (no matter what you call him) and a desire to live right is all we need...But then again, what do I know?

-Mischa Nicole

The Cheese Stands Alone.

What's wrong with being single?

No really, what's wrong with it? What is this epidemic of women always complaining about being alone, being constantly on the prowl for a mate, or clinging in desperation to a man who isn't worthy of such attention or affection? Is being by yourself THAT much of a tragedy?

Maybe if you're a woman in your mid-thirties or forties, I could see your justification for wanting to find a husband/mate ASAP. Your biological clock is ticking, and if you want kids then I can understand your urgency. But I'm confused about these women in their late teens and twenties hunting for a husband, or feeling incomplete without a boyfriend. WHY???

Personally, I think being single is great. I have a freedom that can't be experienced while involved in a committed relationship. I don't have to explain or justify my reasons for doing things, I don't have to deal with having to tell someone where I'm going or who I'm going with, I can go on dates with whomever I wish, I can flirt shamelessly, and I can LIVE without having to fit someone else into my plans. If I don't feel like texting or calling anyone, guess what? I DON'T HAVE TO. My life is completely dedicated to school, finding myself, reaching my goals, and growing as a person, as it should be at my age. Why weigh myself down with the drama and hassle of a committed relationship? I have the rest of my life to deal with that, why start at 20? These are the best years of my life, I can NEVER get these years back. Once they're gone, that's it. And I don't want to look back on my life and realize I spent this time focused on a man who may or may not still be a part of my life.

The best part of being single is having convenient companionship. Meaning that if I want someone to accompany me somewhere, they're only a phone call away. But if I want to be alone, there's no one out there who feels that I'm obligated to spend my free time with them. It's a win-win situation (for me, at least).

I have friends who say I'm afraid of commitment or that I can't stay focused on one guy...and yeah, they're right, but is there anything wrong with that? I can think of a million things more important to me than a man or a relationship with a man. It's just not something that's at the top of my "Priority List". I have so many other things I'd rather be doing. As far as being afraid of commitment, that is 100% correct. I'm afraid of committing to someone too early and regretting it for life. I want to have fun. By "fun" I don't mean sex. I'm not a promiscuous person and I've only been with 2 men in my entire life, so I don't want you to think that this post is about me being as much of a whore as possible before finding some idiot to marry me. lol. I just mean I want to be able to live and enjoy myself ALONE before attempting to live and enjoy myself with a companion. Get it? So all you girls out there chasing these men, changing yourself to suit someone's taste, waiting for your Prince Charming to come on his white horse, or living for your man, let me know if it was worth it in 15 years. And I'll be glad to tell you how much of a blast my 20's were. :-)


-Mischa Nicole


"Maybe some women aren't meant to be tamed. Maybe they just need to run free till they find someone just as wild to run with them." - 'Carrie', Sex in the City

Turn Up the Lights...All the Lights

So I just saw the Kanye West "All of the Lights" video. It was amazing (as always from Kanye), and everyone should go watch it. Unless you have epilepsy...in that case, DO NOT go watch it, because you'll probably die during the video or very shortly after. lol.





"All of the Lights" was the official theme song for All-Star Weekend, which was my original purpose for writing this post...tonight marked the closing of NBA All-Star weekend. :-( It was by far the best ASW I've seen in like 10 years. Here's my recap:

No one watched the Rookie/Sophmore game, I'm not even sure why it's still televised.

Justin Beiber won MVP in the Celebrity Game, and that was expected because he's in the Illuminati. lol

Stephen Curry won the Skills Challenge, which surprised me because I thought D Rose had it for sure.

James Jones won the 3 Point Contest, which doesn't matter because he doesn't hit 3's for the Heat so :-P

Blake Griffin won the Slam-Dunk contest, which really wasn't a surprise. Javale McGee (who looks very much like a leopard) was runner-up, and had some really great dunks.

The West won the All-Star Game (again.), and Kobe got MVP. (shocker *sarcastic face*)

Other Random Facts:

Rihanna looked amazing, except she appears to have robbed Ronald McDonald for his wig.

Stevie Wonder came to hear the game.

Chris Bosh still looks like a baby Brontosaurus n the Geico Gecko.

Also, I think Chris Bosh may have snuck into the All-Star game, if not, then I need answers as to how he got there.

John Wall looks alot like Soulja Boy.

Lebron STILL hasn't been tested for HGH.

Cee-lo Green makes strangely good music even though he looks like a garden gnome.

Kobe still appears to be a large opossum disguised in a man suit and I'm the only one who notices.

Beyonce's shoes gave me life....but then Kanye's pants took it away.

Third Time's the Charm

This is seriously my 3rd time trying to create a blog. I can never stay on top of updating them. Maybe because I'm too busy actually LIVING to sit down and type about my life or my thoughts on my life. But I'm gonna do better this time around...

What's the point of a blog anyway? Everyone has one, just like everyone has a Twitter and Facebook. I think its because we all have this narcissistic idea that everyone cares (or should care) about what we think, feel, or have to say. By the way, follow me on Twitter @MischaNicole and Find me on Facebook, my name is "Mischa 'Nicki' Nicole", so you can start caring what I think, feel, and have to say. lol.

Anywho, my name is Mischa Nicole (you can call me either. Or Nicki. Or Nik. Whatever) I'm from Chicago, Illinois and I'm a 20 year old student at Georgia Southern University. I'll be 21 on May 29th. :-) <<< Yes, I said "May 29th", making me a GEMINI. If you know anything about Geminis, you know we are the most irrational, insane, and wild people out there. If you don't know anything about Geminis, then read the following article so you can learn something new! >

"There are two things Geminis love more than anything, one is variety and the other is conversation. Their love of variety means they are always on the go, full of energy and excitement, and going from one activity or interest to another and another and another. The downside to this is that Geminis are not very good at finishing what they start. They lack staying power and can seem flighty to a lot of the other signs of the zodiac.

These traits can also make the Gemini rather thoughtless. This is not in a malicious way, it is just that they move so quickly they often get sucked into the moment and do not think too deeply about how their words or actions might be construed by the more sensitive signs, such as Cancer or Pisces. Gemini is a reactive sign, sharp minded and quick witted, although there is a downside to this as well because it makes them often have an unsettled or nervous disposition. On the plus side, this makes them very adaptable.

Communication is a Key Gemini Trait

A talent for communication comes from Gemini’s ruling planet – Mercury. The first planet from the sun and appropriately the fastest revolving which reflects Gemini’s pace of life. They are interested in the world and eager to learn what they can and share this with anyone who will listen.

They make both great listeners – as long as what they’re hearing is interesting – and great talkers; Gemini is witty and bright, but also restless, indecisive and flighty. There are not many signs who are so fun, funny or charming.

Gemini, the Sign of the Twins

Gemini has a great interest and passion for learning and life that comes from a sharp mind and good intellect. The sign for Gemini is the Twins, representing a split personality. People say no one knows which personality is going to turn up with a Gemini, making them hard to read; but also giving them an innate ability to see both sides of a problem or point of view. This can make this astrological sign a bit indecisive and prone to complete changes of mind or perspective.

There are strengths to this duality. This ability can make them a good manager of people. So too can their natural passion and excitement. Few people would be so motivating to work with if it was a job they were passionate about.

Gemini Personality Deep Down

Gemini’s more vulnerable side is something very few people see. They keep it well hidden to from the world, almost always appearing up beat and happy no matter how insecure they might feel. A Gemini finds it hard to open up in this way and will only do it with someone who they really trust. It is a big deal when they do and comes with an unspoken pro quo, because if that huge leap of trust is ever broken they will never extend it again. It is worth bearing in mind, to get a better perspective of a Gemini, that they are often nervous or restless people inside. It is hard to get a sense of fulfillment for them, because all too often it is only variety that gives this. As soon as they stick at something the excitement goes and they move on to more exciting territories."

So now that you have an idea of who I am, I'm sure you can predict that this blog is going to be all over the place. So if organized ant routine is what you want...sorry. :-)

-Mischa Nicole